Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-26-00802-CV Claude Beard, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-DC-25-208379, THE HONORABLE CLIFFORD A. BROWN, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Claude Beard, who is acting pro se and charged with a state-jail felony, seeks to appeal an expert’s finding that Beard is incompetent to stand trial. 1 See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.025 (providing for expert’s report to trial court after evaluation of defendant). The clerk’s record shows that after an informal inquiry, the trial court determined that evidence existed supporting a finding of Beard’s incompetency to stand trial. See id. art. 46B.005. The trial court then ordered an examination to determine Beard’s competency to stand trial and appointed counsel to represent him and an expert to evaluate him. See id. arts. 46B.005, .006, .021. The expert issued a report to the trial court after that evaluation, and the trial court found Beard incompetent to stand trial. See id. arts. 46B.025, .071. On July 7, 2026, the trial court signed an order temporarily 1 In the report, the expert opined that Beard is presently incompetent to stand trial but likely to regain competency in the foreseeable future. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.025. committing Beard to a mental-health facility or residential-care facility for inpatient observation and treatment for no longer than 120 days. See id. art. 46B.073(b)(2). The expert’s finding of Beard’s incompetency to stand trial is in a report issued under article 46B.025 of subchapter D. The trial court issued its competency-restoration- commitment order under article 46B.073(b) of subchapter D. Both the expert’s finding and the trial court’s temporary-commitment order relate to the trial court’s initial determination—made under article 46B.005—about the existence of evidence indicating Beard’s incompetency to stand trial. Neither the expert’s finding nor the trial court’s temporary-commitment order are appealable because the Code of Criminal Procedure precludes any interlocutory appeal “relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.” Id. art. 46B.011. And this Court has noted that no legislative provision exists for appeals from temporary-commitment orders issued under article 46B, subchapter D. Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 622 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.). In the absence of an appealable order or final judgment, we lack jurisdiction over Beard’s appeal. See id. at 623 (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because legislature “did not provide for an interlocutory appeal from an order of temporary commitment pending re- evaluation and further proceedings”). Further, because Beard is represented by appointed counsel and has no right to hybrid representation, his attempted appeal presents nothing for our review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en banc). This Court notified Beard and his counsel that we questioned our jurisdiction, and we requested a response by October 9, 2026, explaining why we have jurisdiction over this appeal. On October 16, 2026, Beard filed a response alleging the violation of his right to a speedy trial. But the speedy-trial calculation does not include delays related to a defendant’s competency evaluations. See State v. Lopez, 631 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (“Our 2 caselaw is clear that delays related to competency evaluations do not count against the State.”); Hull v. State, 699 S.W.2d 220, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (concluding that delay due to defendant’s incompetency to stand trial did not infringe on his right to speedy trial). 2 Beard’s response does not demonstrate our jurisdiction over his appeal challenging the expert’s finding under article 46B.025 of Beard’s incompetency to stand trial. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). __________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: November 4, 2026 2 Interlocutory appeals are also not authorized for speedy-trial complaints. See Ex parte Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d 86, 95-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023). 3